Four Supreme Court Justices Summarize How June's Gay-Marriage Decision Was Improper/Illegal

[martybegan]

No I don't. I oppose the courts forcing States to change their marriage laws without the support of the people via the legislature.

I have zero issue with SSM when it is allowed via legislative action, and would probably vote for it if it was put up for a referendum. I would also have no issue with forcing States that banned SSM from having to recognize legal SSM marriage licenses from States that DID issue them, under full faith and credit.

So, you would be perfectly happy with millions of Americans being denied a right enjoyed by millions of other Americans?

It's not a right as far as the constitution (as I read it) is concerned.

You read it incorrectly. The numerous justices, in about half a dozen cases, who have found that the right to choose who you marry is a fundamental liberty right got it correct. How can you defend granting the government the power to decide who you can marry?

They already can, when it comes to polygamy, incest, age, and parental consent. Your issue isn't with government deciding, it's with where to draw the line. My issue is with who gets to draw the line in this specific case.

Yes, it is where to draw the line. It is drawn where there is a compelling governmental interest. Like, for example, not allowing children to wed. Not allowing plural marriages. Not permitting people who are already related according to the law to create another legal relationship. You cannot provide a rational reason why two consenting gay adults should not be permitted to marry.

and you really can't provide a compelling reason to prevent plural marriages between consenting adults, or marriage between same sex people due to relations (because the main issue, which is birth defects, is moot).

Arguing your point to me in the hopes of getting my support via vote or representation makes you a winner, the same argument to do so using the courts makes me disagree with you, in ALL of the above cases.

 

[martybegan]

The 14th amendment was not designed to allow the federal government to make each state a carbon copy of each other. Again, it all boils down to how you consider the word "equal"

No. It was designed to prevent any state from infringing on the rights of citizens. That you are too fucking stupid to understand what equal protection of the laws means is your problem. Apply your strict constructionist approach and you find that any law that treats people differently without a compelling reason for different treatment violates that principle.

I guarantee I am far smarter than you are. You can't be an idiot and get a Masters Degree in Chemical Engineering.

Uh huh.......

Why do people need to find some excuse when other people disagree with them? What happened to just disagreeing and not having to resort to the other person being stupid/evil/sheeple or any combination thereof?

You presume to discuss topics that you know very little about. Your comments on the constitution reveal a poor understanding of that document and the 200+ years of supreme court jurisprudence that has applied it.

My position makes perfect sense if you think the last 50-60 years of jurisprudence contains some major clusterfucks.

 

[paddymurphy]

You seem to think it is. You don't have a problem with marriage rights being won by other groups through the courts. You're fine with divorced couples being granted the right to marry by the SCOTUS. You're fine with interracial couples being granted the right to marry by the SCOTUS and you're fine with convicted prisoners winning their right to marry through the courts.

There's only time where the SCOTUS ruling on the right to marry has you screaming "judicial tyranny".

Hmmmmm, what's the difference in the cases? {thoughtful head scratch}

It's because its such a huge change, something that was never considered when the laws creating State marriage contracts were made, that the only proper way to do it is through the legislatures.

On all those other cases, it was still 1 man, 1 woman. In those other cases marriages of those types were allowed on and off for centuries either here or in Europe or other places. SSM however, is a concept only 30-40 years old.

And there you have it. Marriage rights have been won throught the courts. This is a historical fact. That's how they have been secured through history.

Gays though...they have to do it another way because Marty thinks gays are oogie.

Again, its because those other changes were incremental, and SSM is a much greater change due to the fact that it was not even considered as a concept until 30-40 years ago.

So, how many millions of Americans have to have their rights denied until it is TIME to recognize what you seem to recognize, that there is no good reason to prevent gay people from marrying?

Again, it's not a federal right, and considering the magnitude of the change, it's up to the people via legislative action to decide.

See. That comment is why you are an idiot. Loving and others clearly held that the right to marry is a fundamental component of the right to liberty. Is there a right to liberty in the constitution or not? Can you name a more important choice a person makes in their life than with whom to spend that life in a loving partnership; in a family? What justification is there to deny to all Americans that right to make that choice? You have made hundreds of comments and have yet to explain that. What good is a constitution that protects fundamental rights if everything is left to the direction the political winds are blowing?

 

[martybegan]

It's because its such a huge change, something that was never considered when the laws creating State marriage contracts were made, that the only proper way to do it is through the legislatures.

On all those other cases, it was still 1 man, 1 woman. In those other cases marriages of those types were allowed on and off for centuries either here or in Europe or other places. SSM however, is a concept only 30-40 years old.

And there you have it. Marriage rights have been won throught the courts. This is a historical fact. That's how they have been secured through history.

Gays though...they have to do it another way because Marty thinks gays are oogie.

Again, its because those other changes were incremental, and SSM is a much greater change due to the fact that it was not even considered as a concept until 30-40 years ago.

So, how many millions of Americans have to have their rights denied until it is TIME to recognize what you seem to recognize, that there is no good reason to prevent gay people from marrying?

Again, it's not a federal right, and considering the magnitude of the change, it's up to the people via legislative action to decide.

See. That comment is why you are an idiot. Loving and others clearly held that the right to marry is a fundamental component of the right to liberty. Is there a right to liberty in the constitution or not? Can you name a more important choice a person makes in their life than with whom to spend that life in a loving partnership; in a family? What justification is there to deny to all Americans that right to make that choice? You have made hundreds of comments and have yet to explain that. What good is a constitution that protects fundamental rights if everything is left to the direction the political winds are blowing?

Loving held that in the example of race, not sexuality, and the reason is that marriage contracts have NEVER considered the concept of people of the same sex marrying. They have always allowed opposite sex people to marry each other, with things like race, divorce, age, familial relations being changed and changed back based on the morals and whims of the time. Such a major change as allowing something so different is not for a court to impose on people, but for the people to decide to allow it. What the courts CAN do is force one State government to accept the decision of another State government, and force the feds to treat all Marriage licenses legally issued as equal.

 

[paddymurphy]

So, you would be perfectly happy with millions of Americans being denied a right enjoyed by millions of other Americans?

It's not a right as far as the constitution (as I read it) is concerned.

You read it incorrectly. The numerous justices, in about half a dozen cases, who have found that the right to choose who you marry is a fundamental liberty right got it correct. How can you defend granting the government the power to decide who you can marry?

They already can, when it comes to polygamy, incest, age, and parental consent. Your issue isn't with government deciding, it's with where to draw the line. My issue is with who gets to draw the line in this specific case.

Yes, it is where to draw the line. It is drawn where there is a compelling governmental interest. Like, for example, not allowing children to wed. Not allowing plural marriages. Not permitting people who are already related according to the law to create another legal relationship. You cannot provide a rational reason why two consenting gay adults should not be permitted to marry.

and you really can't provide a compelling reason to prevent plural marriages between consenting adults, or marriage between same sex people due to relations (because the main issue, which is birth defects, is moot).

Arguing your point to me in the hopes of getting my support via vote or representation makes you a winner, the same argument to do so using the courts makes me disagree with you, in ALL of the above cases.

Yes, I can. A marriage comes with certain rights and responsibilities. A married couple are, in many ways, considered in the law to be one entity. A spouse has a legal obligation to support the other when they separate. There are issues of the division of property. The marriage relationship entitles spouses to access to benefits. There is a whole legal structure built around marriage between two people. When they own property, they own it without division. Marital property cannot be reached by the creditors of one spouse. That structure is not affected by two people of the same gender. It is affected by a plural marriage. People who want to be in a plural marriage have the right to live in one, but society is not obligated to recognize any marriage beyond the first one. As for marriages between related people, you are probably right. There may not be a compelling reason even for opposite sex couples. That has nothing to do with gay marriage.

 

[paddymurphy]

No. It was designed to prevent any state from infringing on the rights of citizens. That you are too fucking stupid to understand what equal protection of the laws means is your problem. Apply your strict constructionist approach and you find that any law that treats people differently without a compelling reason for different treatment violates that principle.

I guarantee I am far smarter than you are. You can't be an idiot and get a Masters Degree in Chemical Engineering.

Uh huh.......

Why do people need to find some excuse when other people disagree with them? What happened to just disagreeing and not having to resort to the other person being stupid/evil/sheeple or any combination thereof?

You presume to discuss topics that you know very little about. Your comments on the constitution reveal a poor understanding of that document and the 200+ years of supreme court jurisprudence that has applied it.

My position makes perfect sense if you think the last 50-60 years of jurisprudence contains some major clusterfucks.

Only a fool who does not understand the Constitution could conclude that. I shudder to think what cases you include in that category. Probably anything that involved the courts limiting the power of government over its citizens. You seem to think that the government should be involved in may aspects of a person's private life and should have more power over other aspects of society.

 

[paddymurphy]

And there you have it. Marriage rights have been won throught the courts. This is a historical fact. That's how they have been secured through history.

Gays though...they have to do it another way because Marty thinks gays are oogie.

Again, its because those other changes were incremental, and SSM is a much greater change due to the fact that it was not even considered as a concept until 30-40 years ago.

So, how many millions of Americans have to have their rights denied until it is TIME to recognize what you seem to recognize, that there is no good reason to prevent gay people from marrying?

Again, it's not a federal right, and considering the magnitude of the change, it's up to the people via legislative action to decide.

See. That comment is why you are an idiot. Loving and others clearly held that the right to marry is a fundamental component of the right to liberty. Is there a right to liberty in the constitution or not? Can you name a more important choice a person makes in their life than with whom to spend that life in a loving partnership; in a family? What justification is there to deny to all Americans that right to make that choice? You have made hundreds of comments and have yet to explain that. What good is a constitution that protects fundamental rights if everything is left to the direction the political winds are blowing?

Loving held that in the example of race, not sexuality, and the reason is that marriage contracts have NEVER considered the concept of people of the same sex marrying. They have always allowed opposite sex people to marry each other, with things like race, divorce, age, familial relations being changed and changed back based on the morals and whims of the time. Such a major change as allowing something so different is not for a court to impose on people, but for the people to decide to allow it. What the courts CAN do is force one State government to accept the decision of another State government, and force the feds to treat all Marriage licenses legally issued as equal.

I have more faith in the ability of individuals to decide who to marry. You seem to think the government knows better. That is where we differ.

 

[martybegan]

It's not a right as far as the constitution (as I read it) is concerned.

You read it incorrectly. The numerous justices, in about half a dozen cases, who have found that the right to choose who you marry is a fundamental liberty right got it correct. How can you defend granting the government the power to decide who you can marry?

They already can, when it comes to polygamy, incest, age, and parental consent. Your issue isn't with government deciding, it's with where to draw the line. My issue is with who gets to draw the line in this specific case.

Yes, it is where to draw the line. It is drawn where there is a compelling governmental interest. Like, for example, not allowing children to wed. Not allowing plural marriages. Not permitting people who are already related according to the law to create another legal relationship. You cannot provide a rational reason why two consenting gay adults should not be permitted to marry.

and you really can't provide a compelling reason to prevent plural marriages between consenting adults, or marriage between same sex people due to relations (because the main issue, which is birth defects, is moot).

Arguing your point to me in the hopes of getting my support via vote or representation makes you a winner, the same argument to do so using the courts makes me disagree with you, in ALL of the above cases.

Yes, I can. A marriage comes with certain rights and responsibilities. A married couple are, in many ways, considered in the law to be one entity. A spouse has a legal obligation to support the other when they separate. There are issues of the division of property. The marriage relationship entitles spouses to access to benefits. There is a whole legal structure built around marriage between two people. When they own property, they own it without division. Marital property cannot be reached by the creditors of one spouse. That structure is not affected by two people of the same gender. It is affected by a plural marriage. People who want to be in a plural marriage have the right to live in one, but society is not obligated to recognize any marriage beyond the first one. As for marriages between related people, you are probably right. There may not be a compelling reason even for opposite sex couples. That has nothing to do with gay marriage.

Both are a radical change to the concept of marriage as given by centuries of american tradition and law. Now you are arguing details when it suits you. All the arguments you give just means the government has to do a bit more work, nothing more. The concept remains that such a radical change such as SSM and to me Plural Marriage requires the people to decide they want to allow it.

 

[martybegan]

Again, its because those other changes were incremental, and SSM is a much greater change due to the fact that it was not even considered as a concept until 30-40 years ago.

So, how many millions of Americans have to have their rights denied until it is TIME to recognize what you seem to recognize, that there is no good reason to prevent gay people from marrying?

Again, it's not a federal right, and considering the magnitude of the change, it's up to the people via legislative action to decide.

See. That comment is why you are an idiot. Loving and others clearly held that the right to marry is a fundamental component of the right to liberty. Is there a right to liberty in the constitution or not? Can you name a more important choice a person makes in their life than with whom to spend that life in a loving partnership; in a family? What justification is there to deny to all Americans that right to make that choice? You have made hundreds of comments and have yet to explain that. What good is a constitution that protects fundamental rights if everything is left to the direction the political winds are blowing?

Loving held that in the example of race, not sexuality, and the reason is that marriage contracts have NEVER considered the concept of people of the same sex marrying. They have always allowed opposite sex people to marry each other, with things like race, divorce, age, familial relations being changed and changed back based on the morals and whims of the time. Such a major change as allowing something so different is not for a court to impose on people, but for the people to decide to allow it. What the courts CAN do is force one State government to accept the decision of another State government, and force the feds to treat all Marriage licenses legally issued as equal.

I have more faith in the ability of individuals to decide who to marry. You seem to think the government knows better. That is where we differ.

And you have the opposite view when it comes to my right to own a firearm, or for a baker to not be compelled to bake a cake they don't want. Evidently government force is A-OK as long as it's government force you like.

 

[paddymurphy]

You read it incorrectly. The numerous justices, in about half a dozen cases, who have found that the right to choose who you marry is a fundamental liberty right got it correct. How can you defend granting the government the power to decide who you can marry?

They already can, when it comes to polygamy, incest, age, and parental consent. Your issue isn't with government deciding, it's with where to draw the line. My issue is with who gets to draw the line in this specific case.

Yes, it is where to draw the line. It is drawn where there is a compelling governmental interest. Like, for example, not allowing children to wed. Not allowing plural marriages. Not permitting people who are already related according to the law to create another legal relationship. You cannot provide a rational reason why two consenting gay adults should not be permitted to marry.

and you really can't provide a compelling reason to prevent plural marriages between consenting adults, or marriage between same sex people due to relations (because the main issue, which is birth defects, is moot).

Arguing your point to me in the hopes of getting my support via vote or representation makes you a winner, the same argument to do so using the courts makes me disagree with you, in ALL of the above cases.

Yes, I can. A marriage comes with certain rights and responsibilities. A married couple are, in many ways, considered in the law to be one entity. A spouse has a legal obligation to support the other when they separate. There are issues of the division of property. The marriage relationship entitles spouses to access to benefits. There is a whole legal structure built around marriage between two people. When they own property, they own it without division. Marital property cannot be reached by the creditors of one spouse. That structure is not affected by two people of the same gender. It is affected by a plural marriage. People who want to be in a plural marriage have the right to live in one, but society is not obligated to recognize any marriage beyond the first one. As for marriages between related people, you are probably right. There may not be a compelling reason even for opposite sex couples. That has nothing to do with gay marriage.

Both are a radical change to the concept of marriage as given by centuries of american tradition and law. Now you are arguing details when it suits you. All the arguments you give just means the government has to do a bit more work, nothing more. The concept remains that such a radical change such as SSM and to me Plural Marriage requires the people to decide they want to allow it.

No, Mr. Engineer, I am explaining to you the compelling governmental reason to continue to ban plural marriages. You asked me to and I did. Now you cannot form a rational response so you dismiss them as "details." SSM was not a radical change. Gay couples have been involved in lifelong commitments to one another for generations. They just had to hide those relationships from the bigots you seem to think should have the right to decide who marries.

 

[martybegan]

They already can, when it comes to polygamy, incest, age, and parental consent. Your issue isn't with government deciding, it's with where to draw the line. My issue is with who gets to draw the line in this specific case.

Yes, it is where to draw the line. It is drawn where there is a compelling governmental interest. Like, for example, not allowing children to wed. Not allowing plural marriages. Not permitting people who are already related according to the law to create another legal relationship. You cannot provide a rational reason why two consenting gay adults should not be permitted to marry.

and you really can't provide a compelling reason to prevent plural marriages between consenting adults, or marriage between same sex people due to relations (because the main issue, which is birth defects, is moot).

Arguing your point to me in the hopes of getting my support via vote or representation makes you a winner, the same argument to do so using the courts makes me disagree with you, in ALL of the above cases.

Yes, I can. A marriage comes with certain rights and responsibilities. A married couple are, in many ways, considered in the law to be one entity. A spouse has a legal obligation to support the other when they separate. There are issues of the division of property. The marriage relationship entitles spouses to access to benefits. There is a whole legal structure built around marriage between two people. When they own property, they own it without division. Marital property cannot be reached by the creditors of one spouse. That structure is not affected by two people of the same gender. It is affected by a plural marriage. People who want to be in a plural marriage have the right to live in one, but society is not obligated to recognize any marriage beyond the first one. As for marriages between related people, you are probably right. There may not be a compelling reason even for opposite sex couples. That has nothing to do with gay marriage.

Both are a radical change to the concept of marriage as given by centuries of american tradition and law. Now you are arguing details when it suits you. All the arguments you give just means the government has to do a bit more work, nothing more. The concept remains that such a radical change such as SSM and to me Plural Marriage requires the people to decide they want to allow it.

No, Mr. Engineer, I am explaining to you the compelling governmental reason to continue to ban plural marriages. You asked me to and I did. Now you cannot form a rational response so you dismiss them as "details." SSM was not a radical change. Gay couples have been involved in lifelong commitments to one another for generations. They just had to hide those relationships from the bigots you seem to think should have the right to decide who marries.

It is a very radical change, Plural marriage has more precedent throughout history than SSM does.

and said compelling government interest seems to only spawn from your desire to separate it from plural marriage, nothing more. all the reasons you listed are easily dealt with by changes to laws.

It still to me doesn't mean a court can force either, but if a legislature votes it in and issues licenses, the rest of the states have to accept.

 

[paddymurphy]

So, how many millions of Americans have to have their rights denied until it is TIME to recognize what you seem to recognize, that there is no good reason to prevent gay people from marrying?

Again, it's not a federal right, and considering the magnitude of the change, it's up to the people via legislative action to decide.

See. That comment is why you are an idiot. Loving and others clearly held that the right to marry is a fundamental component of the right to liberty. Is there a right to liberty in the constitution or not? Can you name a more important choice a person makes in their life than with whom to spend that life in a loving partnership; in a family? What justification is there to deny to all Americans that right to make that choice? You have made hundreds of comments and have yet to explain that. What good is a constitution that protects fundamental rights if everything is left to the direction the political winds are blowing?

Loving held that in the example of race, not sexuality, and the reason is that marriage contracts have NEVER considered the concept of people of the same sex marrying. They have always allowed opposite sex people to marry each other, with things like race, divorce, age, familial relations being changed and changed back based on the morals and whims of the time. Such a major change as allowing something so different is not for a court to impose on people, but for the people to decide to allow it. What the courts CAN do is force one State government to accept the decision of another State government, and force the feds to treat all Marriage licenses legally issued as equal.

I have more faith in the ability of individuals to decide who to marry. You seem to think the government knows better. That is where we differ.

And you have the opposite view when it comes to my right to own a firearm, or for a baker to not be compelled to bake a cake they don't want. Evidently government force is A-OK as long as it's government force you like.

Don't tell me what I believe, dickhead. You do have the right to own a firearm. I never said you didn't. Though, since I know nothing about your criminal history or history of mental illness or abusive behavior towards women, that right may have been lost. I do support laws that ban discrimination in public accommodations. You, apparently, think that discrimination is fine. Some b and b owner does not like Jews, you would allow them to not rent to them. They don't like blacks, they need to have the freedom to discriminate. I think society has the right to restrict conduct that is harmful to society. Discrimination is harmful

 

[paddymurphy]

Yes, it is where to draw the line. It is drawn where there is a compelling governmental interest. Like, for example, not allowing children to wed. Not allowing plural marriages. Not permitting people who are already related according to the law to create another legal relationship. You cannot provide a rational reason why two consenting gay adults should not be permitted to marry.

and you really can't provide a compelling reason to prevent plural marriages between consenting adults, or marriage between same sex people due to relations (because the main issue, which is birth defects, is moot).

Arguing your point to me in the hopes of getting my support via vote or representation makes you a winner, the same argument to do so using the courts makes me disagree with you, in ALL of the above cases.

Yes, I can. A marriage comes with certain rights and responsibilities. A married couple are, in many ways, considered in the law to be one entity. A spouse has a legal obligation to support the other when they separate. There are issues of the division of property. The marriage relationship entitles spouses to access to benefits. There is a whole legal structure built around marriage between two people. When they own property, they own it without division. Marital property cannot be reached by the creditors of one spouse. That structure is not affected by two people of the same gender. It is affected by a plural marriage. People who want to be in a plural marriage have the right to live in one, but society is not obligated to recognize any marriage beyond the first one. As for marriages between related people, you are probably right. There may not be a compelling reason even for opposite sex couples. That has nothing to do with gay marriage.

Both are a radical change to the concept of marriage as given by centuries of american tradition and law. Now you are arguing details when it suits you. All the arguments you give just means the government has to do a bit more work, nothing more. The concept remains that such a radical change such as SSM and to me Plural Marriage requires the people to decide they want to allow it.

No, Mr. Engineer, I am explaining to you the compelling governmental reason to continue to ban plural marriages. You asked me to and I did. Now you cannot form a rational response so you dismiss them as "details." SSM was not a radical change. Gay couples have been involved in lifelong commitments to one another for generations. They just had to hide those relationships from the bigots you seem to think should have the right to decide who marries.

It is a very radical change, Plural marriage has more precedent throughout history than SSM does.

and said compelling government interest seems to only spawn from your desire to separate it from plural marriage, nothing more. all the reasons you listed are easily dealt with by changes to laws.

It still to me doesn't mean a court can force either, but if a legislature votes it in and issues licenses, the rest of the states have to accept.

None of the things I listed are easily dealt with through changes in the law. More importantly, why do you assholes always try to turn a discussion on gay marriage into a discussion on other issues? I don't frankly, fucking care about plural marriages. Whether they are legal or not has nothing to do with gay marriage. You want to marry two other men, you go to court and fight for that right.

 

[martybegan]

Again, it's not a federal right, and considering the magnitude of the change, it's up to the people via legislative action to decide.

See. That comment is why you are an idiot. Loving and others clearly held that the right to marry is a fundamental component of the right to liberty. Is there a right to liberty in the constitution or not? Can you name a more important choice a person makes in their life than with whom to spend that life in a loving partnership; in a family? What justification is there to deny to all Americans that right to make that choice? You have made hundreds of comments and have yet to explain that. What good is a constitution that protects fundamental rights if everything is left to the direction the political winds are blowing?

Loving held that in the example of race, not sexuality, and the reason is that marriage contracts have NEVER considered the concept of people of the same sex marrying. They have always allowed opposite sex people to marry each other, with things like race, divorce, age, familial relations being changed and changed back based on the morals and whims of the time. Such a major change as allowing something so different is not for a court to impose on people, but for the people to decide to allow it. What the courts CAN do is force one State government to accept the decision of another State government, and force the feds to treat all Marriage licenses legally issued as equal.

I have more faith in the ability of individuals to decide who to marry. You seem to think the government knows better. That is where we differ.

And you have the opposite view when it comes to my right to own a firearm, or for a baker to not be compelled to bake a cake they don't want. Evidently government force is A-OK as long as it's government force you like.

Don't tell me what I believe, dickhead. You do have the right to own a firearm. I never said you didn't. Though, since I know nothing about your criminal history or history of mental illness or abusive behavior towards women, that right may have been lost. I do support laws that ban discrimination in public accommodations. You, apparently, think that discrimination is fine. Some b and b owner does not like Jews, you would allow them to not rent to them. They don't like blacks, they need to have the freedom to discriminate. I think society has the right to restrict conduct that is harmful to society. Discrimination is harmful

So you think the NYC law that requires me to spend $3,000, 6 months and provide a reason to NYPD to get a CCW is wrong? I have no criminal record or history of mental illness.

I support laws that ban discrimination in true public accommodations, especially ones that provide timely or life necessary services. I also think government has an interest in preventing systemic discrimination is all types of transactions. What I don't support is using said laws in limited specific cases. Let the market handle that, and in this day and age, it will.

 

[martybegan]

and you really can't provide a compelling reason to prevent plural marriages between consenting adults, or marriage between same sex people due to relations (because the main issue, which is birth defects, is moot).

Arguing your point to me in the hopes of getting my support via vote or representation makes you a winner, the same argument to do so using the courts makes me disagree with you, in ALL of the above cases.

Yes, I can. A marriage comes with certain rights and responsibilities. A married couple are, in many ways, considered in the law to be one entity. A spouse has a legal obligation to support the other when they separate. There are issues of the division of property. The marriage relationship entitles spouses to access to benefits. There is a whole legal structure built around marriage between two people. When they own property, they own it without division. Marital property cannot be reached by the creditors of one spouse. That structure is not affected by two people of the same gender. It is affected by a plural marriage. People who want to be in a plural marriage have the right to live in one, but society is not obligated to recognize any marriage beyond the first one. As for marriages between related people, you are probably right. There may not be a compelling reason even for opposite sex couples. That has nothing to do with gay marriage.

Both are a radical change to the concept of marriage as given by centuries of american tradition and law. Now you are arguing details when it suits you. All the arguments you give just means the government has to do a bit more work, nothing more. The concept remains that such a radical change such as SSM and to me Plural Marriage requires the people to decide they want to allow it.

No, Mr. Engineer, I am explaining to you the compelling governmental reason to continue to ban plural marriages. You asked me to and I did. Now you cannot form a rational response so you dismiss them as "details." SSM was not a radical change. Gay couples have been involved in lifelong commitments to one another for generations. They just had to hide those relationships from the bigots you seem to think should have the right to decide who marries.

It is a very radical change, Plural marriage has more precedent throughout history than SSM does.

and said compelling government interest seems to only spawn from your desire to separate it from plural marriage, nothing more. all the reasons you listed are easily dealt with by changes to laws.

It still to me doesn't mean a court can force either, but if a legislature votes it in and issues licenses, the rest of the states have to accept.

None of the things I listed are easily dealt with through changes in the law. More importantly, why do you assholes always try to turn a discussion on gay marriage into a discussion on other issues? I don't frankly, fucking care about plural marriages. Whether they are legal or not has nothing to do with gay marriage. You want to marry two other men, you go to court and fight for that right.

because the side that wants the courts to decide it talk in terms like, love, and not impacting others, and other intangible concepts, all of which can be exactly applied to plural marriage, and other examples. You note I don't go the whole bestiality path, because that one is just stupid.

 

[bodecea]

See. That comment is why you are an idiot. Loving and others clearly held that the right to marry is a fundamental component of the right to liberty. Is there a right to liberty in the constitution or not? Can you name a more important choice a person makes in their life than with whom to spend that life in a loving partnership; in a family? What justification is there to deny to all Americans that right to make that choice? You have made hundreds of comments and have yet to explain that. What good is a constitution that protects fundamental rights if everything is left to the direction the political winds are blowing?

Loving held that in the example of race, not sexuality, and the reason is that marriage contracts have NEVER considered the concept of people of the same sex marrying. They have always allowed opposite sex people to marry each other, with things like race, divorce, age, familial relations being changed and changed back based on the morals and whims of the time. Such a major change as allowing something so different is not for a court to impose on people, but for the people to decide to allow it. What the courts CAN do is force one State government to accept the decision of another State government, and force the feds to treat all Marriage licenses legally issued as equal.

I have more faith in the ability of individuals to decide who to marry. You seem to think the government knows better. That is where we differ.

And you have the opposite view when it comes to my right to own a firearm, or for a baker to not be compelled to bake a cake they don't want. Evidently government force is A-OK as long as it's government force you like.

Don't tell me what I believe, dickhead. You do have the right to own a firearm. I never said you didn't. Though, since I know nothing about your criminal history or history of mental illness or abusive behavior towards women, that right may have been lost. I do support laws that ban discrimination in public accommodations. You, apparently, think that discrimination is fine. Some b and b owner does not like Jews, you would allow them to not rent to them. They don't like blacks, they need to have the freedom to discriminate. I think society has the right to restrict conduct that is harmful to society. Discrimination is harmful

So you think the NYC law that requires me to spend $3,000, 6 months and provide a reason to NYPD to get a CCW is wrong? I have no criminal record or history of mental illness.

I support laws that ban discrimination in true public accommodations, especially ones that provide timely or life necessary services. I also think government has an interest in preventing systemic discrimination is all types of transactions. What I don't support is using said laws in limited specific cases. Let the market handle that, and in this day and age, it will.

Why are you going off topic of legal gay marriage?

 

[Vandalshandle]

It is always amusing seeing people with no legal education explain why Supreme Court decisions are incorrect.

For some reason, these people do not understand the basic truth regarding law.

The Supreme Court may not always agree with you. However, they will always be the Supreme Court.

That being said, ends the argument.

 

[martybegan]

Loving held that in the example of race, not sexuality, and the reason is that marriage contracts have NEVER considered the concept of people of the same sex marrying. They have always allowed opposite sex people to marry each other, with things like race, divorce, age, familial relations being changed and changed back based on the morals and whims of the time. Such a major change as allowing something so different is not for a court to impose on people, but for the people to decide to allow it. What the courts CAN do is force one State government to accept the decision of another State government, and force the feds to treat all Marriage licenses legally issued as equal.

I have more faith in the ability of individuals to decide who to marry. You seem to think the government knows better. That is where we differ.

And you have the opposite view when it comes to my right to own a firearm, or for a baker to not be compelled to bake a cake they don't want. Evidently government force is A-OK as long as it's government force you like.

Don't tell me what I believe, dickhead. You do have the right to own a firearm. I never said you didn't. Though, since I know nothing about your criminal history or history of mental illness or abusive behavior towards women, that right may have been lost. I do support laws that ban discrimination in public accommodations. You, apparently, think that discrimination is fine. Some b and b owner does not like Jews, you would allow them to not rent to them. They don't like blacks, they need to have the freedom to discriminate. I think society has the right to restrict conduct that is harmful to society. Discrimination is harmful

So you think the NYC law that requires me to spend $3,000, 6 months and provide a reason to NYPD to get a CCW is wrong? I have no criminal record or history of mental illness.

I support laws that ban discrimination in true public accommodations, especially ones that provide timely or life necessary services. I also think government has an interest in preventing systemic discrimination is all types of transactions. What I don't support is using said laws in limited specific cases. Let the market handle that, and in this day and age, it will.

Why are you going off topic of legal gay marriage?

because its page 132 of this thread, and the point I am trying to make led to the current post.

Thread Nazis only count under page 50. after that, its bedlam, dogs and cats, living together, mass hysteria.

 

[martybegan]

It is always amusing seeing people with no legal education explain why Supreme Court decisions are incorrect.

For some reason, these people do not understand the basic truth regarding law.

The Supreme Court may not always agree with you. However, they will always be the Supreme Court.

That being said, ends the argument.

"Rome has spoken, the matter is settled" is an argument used by autocrats and dictators. Free people can question anything they want to, and the argument is NEVER over.

 

[Silhouette]

because the side that wants the courts to decide it talk in terms like, love, and not impacting others, and other intangible concepts, all of which can be exactly applied to plural marriage, and other examples. You note I don't go the whole bestiality path, because that one is just stupid.

You know that's funny because that's what people were saying about "gay marriage" in the 1980s when the gay manifesto was published from Michael Swift. 1987's Gay Manifesto Then & Now. How Much of it Rings True Today? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


Give it a generation or two of "anything goes" from the LGBT cult. You may be surprised. Legal precedent is legal precedent and that lady wears a blindfold for a reason... An unstoppable unreflective momentum, given time, can accomplish anything its whims conjure up..